A tale of two cities and two op-eds
<font size=4>
Two of the largest and most influential newspapers in the home states of our two presidential candidates have today published op-eds about Sen. Kerry and the SwiftVets.
Lee Cearnal, the author of the op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, is identified as the Chronicle's special projects editor, which explains the basis upon which his piece can be entitled <font color=red>"Where's my colleagues' interest in Kerry's war records?"<font color=black> Despite being situated in a heavily Republican and conservative city in a heavily Republican and conservative state, the Chronicle is far from being reliably conservative or pro-Republican in its own editorial policies. I don't know Mr. Cearnal's personal politics, but I suspect his viewpoint on the SwiftVets vs. Kerry fray may be more reflective of his personal history: <font color=red>"A former Marine helicopter pilot, he served in Vietnam from mid-1968 through mid-1969."<font color=black>
Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, by contrast, makes no secret of her politics when she writes in her op ed that <font color=blue>"Bush is the known purveyor of false information,"<font color=black> and that <font color=blue>"Kerry offers the promise of a credible voice speaking truth to Americans and the world."<font color=black> I believe the right modifier here is <font color=blue>"unabashed,"<font color=black> since she forthrightly takes Sen. Kerry to task for his recent straddles on various issues that, Ms. Vennochi thinks, add up <font color=blue>"to an unseemly effort to side-step the label that best describes his voting record: liberal."<font color=black>
So it's quite remarkable that both of these two op-eds sharply criticize Sen. Kerry's approach to the SwiftVets' charges. From Mr. Cearnal (italics his):
<font color=red>
"To those of you who say such questions [as those raised by the SwiftVets] are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records — all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released — and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it."<font color=black>
And from Ms. Vennochi:
<font color=blue>
"Answers like [the Kerry campaign's responses so far to the Christmas in Cambodia story] aren't good enough. Kerry put his Vietnam service before voters as the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign. He should answer every question voters have about it — and he should answer them himself."<font color=black>
I agree with them both. Sen. Kerry, release the records; gather your band of brothers who support your claims, if you wish; but then face your accusers yourself. Heck, let's dust off Dick Cavett to moderate another go-round between you and John O'Neill!
I expect that if I had a chance to put this challenge to him in person, Sen. Kerry's response would be: <font color=blue>"Do you know who I am?"<font color=black> Well, yeah, actually I'd normally agree with you, Senator, that a presidential nominee ought not be expected to respond personally to his accusers except in the most extraordinary of circumstances.
But these are such circumstances, Sen. Kerry — and you, sir, have created them. You're a veteran of the United States Navy, sir, twice decorated for bravery and thrice decorated for your wounds. What better way now to display political courage commensurate with the battlefield courage you claim to have displayed in Vietnam than by turning your campaign directly into the fire of your political enemies and confronting them?
<font size=3>
beldar.blogs.com |
